Facts:

• The case involves Philippine Motor Alcohol Corporation and Carlos Palanca as petitioners against Emilio Mapa, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and respondents C. M. Hudson and J. E. Berkenkotter.
• On June 14, 1937, C. M. Hudson filed a complaint against the petitioners in civil case No. 51448 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• Judge Emilio Mapa issued an ex parte order appointing J. E. Berkenkotter as receiver for the corporation's property without prior notice to the defendants.
• The order was served to the petitioners on June 15, 1937.
• The petitioners filed a motion to suspend and dissolve the order on June 16, 1937, which was denied by Judge Mapa on June 28, 1937.
• The petitioners challenged the order's validity on several grounds, including lack of notice, absence of a valid basis for appointing a receiver, and the existence of other remedies for Hudson's claim.
• They argued that the receiver's appointment would disrupt the corporation's business and cause irreparable harm.
• The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the order and prevent Berkenkotter from taking possession of the corporation's property.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the ex parte order appointing a receiver was valid.
• The Court found that the complaint provided sufficient grounds for the appointment of a receiver.
• The Court held that the provisions ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court reasoned that appointing a receiver is a discretionary measure of the trial court when necessary.
• The Court acknowledged the trial judge's authority to issue an ex parte order under the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically section 177.
• The petitioners had the opportunity to contest the order after its issuance, and their arguments were considered by the judge.
• The complaint clearly alleged the insolvency or imminent danger of insolvency of the ...continue reading